1886. | CEPY DOCUMENT. [No. 27. 


ii PO RTL 


SHOWING LOCATION AND SIZE 


OF THE 


Main and Intercepting Sewers 


AND OTHER INFORMATION RELATING TO THE 
REPORT PRESENTED TO THE 
CITY COUNCIL 


BY 


». M. GRAY, CITY ENGINEER, 


NOVEMBER 14, 1884. 


[City Doc., No. 25. ] 


PROVIDENCE: 
PROVIDENCE PRESS COMPANY, PRINTERS TO THE CITY. 
1886. 


25 3 2 a Bleprrd 


DOG. 6 
P DURER 


jail nhl eet OM na Bp 


City ENGINEER’S OFFICE, City HALL, 
ProvipENCE, R. I., February 2, 1886. 


To THE HONORABLE THE CrtTy COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF 
PROVIDENCE: 


GENTLEMEN :—In pursuance of resolutions passed by 
your honorable bodies, to wit : 


[In Common Council, January 18, 1886. ] 


Resolved, That the city engineer be, and he hereby is directed to prepare 
plans showing the size, levels and grades of the following enumerated 
main intercepting sewers, and report the same to the common council in 
print, viz. : 

First. The main intercepting sewer for the ninth ward, beginning at 

'. the proposed pumping station and running westerly to Allen’s avenue, 
.thence northwesterly to the corner of Dexter and Cromwell streets, us 
described in appendix C, page 126 of the proposed plan for a sewerage 

iG system for the city of Providence, by Samuel M. Gray, city engineer, and 
*~ contained in city document No. 25, 1884. 


Second. The main intercepting sewer from the proposed pumping sta- 
tion, westerly to Allen’s avenue, and thence northerly through Allen’s 
avenue, Eddy and Dyer streets to Westminster street, as described on 

= page 127 of the above named city document. 


Third. The main intercepting sewer and siphon across the river from 
the junction of Allen’s avenue and Langley street, easterly across the 
Providence river, and northerly through South Water and Canal streets, 
and through the valley of the Moshassuck river to the city line, as de- 
scribed in the above named city document on pages 129 and 130. 


[In Board of Aldermen, January 27, 1886. ] 


c~ Resolved, That the city engineer be, and he is hereby directed to present 

— in print to the board of aldermen, in connection with the information to 

VY be furnished by him to the common council, in accordance with the reso- 

—_ lution dated January 18, 1886, the following information relative to his 
report on the sewerage of the city of Providence, presented to the city 
council, dated July 23, 1884: 


uGY 


304614 


4 CITY DOCUMENT. [No. 27. 


First. Plans showing the locations, sizes, elevations and grades of the 
outfall, main and intercepting sewers, etc., as recommended by him in 
said report, together with his reasons for the location of said lines as 
therein proposed. 


Second. Why the crossing of the Providence river is done at Fox 
Point instead of at or near Crawford street bridge, and the relative cost 
of the two plans. 


Third. Why the line for the main intercepting sewer for taking the 
sewage from parts of the seventh, eighth and tenth wards is carried 
through Richmond and Mathewson streets instead of through Dyer, Dor- 


rance and Cove streets, where for a large part of the way a sewer is now 
built. 


Fourth. That he show the main features of a plan for disposing of the 
sewage by means of irrigation at Warwick and at Seekonk Plains, and also 
a plan for the disposal of crude sewage by means of a reservoir or other- 
wise at Field’s Point, and that he show what changes from the plan pro- 
posed in his report would be necessary for thus disposing of the sewage 
and the relative cost of such plans, and his reasons for the recommenda- 
tions made by him for the disposal of the sewage of the city. 


Fifth. That he show in detail the cost of the parts necessary for pre- 
cipitation in the plan recommended. 


Sixth. That he show whether manufacturing waste can be discharged 
into the proposed sewers from the various manufactories. 


Seventh. That he also furnish any other general information pertinent 
to the subject. 


[In Board of Aldermen, April 15, 1886. ] 


Resolved, That the city engineer be, and he is hereby instructed to 
report to the city council the information called for relative to his report 
on the sewerage of the city of Providence, under resolution of this 
board dated January 27, 1886. . 


I respectfully present the following report : 


First. Plans showing the locations, sizes, elevations and grades of the 
outfall, main and intercepting sewers, etc., as recommended by him in 
said report, together with his reasons for the location of said lines as 
therein proposed 


On the map accompanying this report will be seen the 
location of the main and intercepting sewers, as referred to 
in the report of the city engineer presented to the city 


REPORT OF CITY ENGINEER. 5 


council, dated July 23, 1884. These lines are identical 
with those repesented on maps incorporated in the report of 
1884. On the profiles Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, appended to 
this report, can be found the sizes, elevations, grades, etc., 
of the intercepting sewers, the lines of which are repre- 
sented on the general map accompanying this report. 
Nature usually provides valley lines for the drainage of any 
territory, and in some cases so positively marked and de- 
fined that to follow any other course would be well-nigh 
impossible. Slight deviations from the natural lines may 
be necessary in order to follow the existing layout of 
streets. In locating the lines for the main sewers, the prin- 
ciple of following the valley lines has been adhered to as 
strictly as possible. In determining the location of main 
intercepting sewers, the principle of crossing and intercept- 
ing the lines of the main sewers near their outlets should 
be adhered to in order to intercept as much of the sewage 
flowing in them as is possible. The lines of these sewers will 
therefore be found following the course of the streams or 
shore line, governed more or less by the lines of existing 
streets, or passing through private property when no con- 
venient layout exists. Intercepting sewers are sometimes 
used to prevent the sewage of one district from flowing 
through a lower district, or to keep the sewage and lines of 
sewers within the limits of the town or city ; such is the case 
with a large part of the eighth and ninth wards, the natural 
line of drainage for which is through Cunliff’s pond, in the 
town of Cranston, and into the Pawtuxet river. 

When it is necessary to depart from the natural lines of 
drainage, the line which is the shortest and cheapest from 
the lower part of the district drained to the point of gen- 
eral collection is the best. Such is the case in the line rep- 
resented on the map from the corner of Roger Williams 
avenue and Cobden streets to the proposed pumping station 
near Corliss cove. 


6 CITY DOCUMENT. [ No. 27. 


Second. Why the crossing of the Providence river is done at Fox Point 
instead of at or near Crawford street bridge, and the relative cost of the 
two plans. 


The lower part of any district is the natural place to con- 
centrate the sewage of that district. Nearly all the sewers 
on the east side naturally tend towards Fox Point, and this 
therefore becomes the natural point at which to cross the 
river. 

By crossing the river at Fox Point we keep almost ina 
direct line towards the point of final collection. 

The most economical system of sewers, both in point of 
size and cost of the same, is when not only the grades but 
the lines of sewers can tend towards one point. Bringing 
the sewage from the Seekonk river branch main sewer, from 
Fox Point up to Crawford street (while it diminishes the 
size of the main over that part of the line a very little), 
necessitates the laying of the sewer at a lower grade, as it 
runs against the natural grade, the extra depth being (for 
the crown grade) the sum of the two grades into the dis- 
tance (some 3,650 feet) ; it also necessitates the building of 
a much larger sewer, laid at a greater depth, from Crawford 
street bridge through Dyer street and Eddy street to Langley 
street ; it furthermore necessitates the lowering of the main 
intercepting sewer about 2.80 feet from Langley street to the 
pumping station at Field’s Point, with a corresponding deep- 
ing of the foundation of the pump well. This also adds a 
perpetual extra lift for the pumps, which will add to the 
cost of pumping into precipitation tanks or into a reservoir, 
or to irrigation fields, as the case may be. 

The crossing of the river at Fox Point is at a place where 
there is room to work, with no obstructions on either shore 
or over the river, and where necessary buildings can be 
placed on each end of the siphon without obstructing travel 
in the public highways. 

The line as proposed in South Water street and crossing 
the Providence river to Allen’s avenue is also a better line 


REPORT OF CITY ENGINEER. 7 


on which to build a deep sewer than Dyer street with its 
large and heavy buildings would be. Dyer street is also 
pretty well occupied at present by a thirty-inch and a six- 
inch water pipe, a sewer, and gas pipes. 

The estimated cost of the sewer, as proposed in the report 
of 1884, in South Water street, across the river at Fox 
Point to Allen’s avenue, and up Eddy street and Dyer street 
to Crawford street bridge, is $216,245.15. 

The line from India street, up South Water street to 
Crawford street, across the river and through Dyer and 
Eddy streets to Langley street, is $229,677.70, a difference 
of $13,432.55. 

The cost of lowering the line from Langley street to the 
pumping well, and the lowering of the foundations of the 
same, would be $22,975.00, which, plus $13,432.55, equals 
$36,407.55, which is the difference in construction of the 
work. ‘To this is to be added the perpetual cost of raising 
the sewage 2.80 feet higher than by proposed plan. 

The extra depth, increase of size, etc., etc., can be seen 
on Plate No. 6 accompanying this report. The full lines 
represent the lines as proposed; the dotted lines show the 
changes necessary if the crossing of the river is done at 
Crawford street bridge instead of at Fox Point. 


Third. Why the line for the main intercepting sewer for taking the 
sewage from parts of the seventh, eighth and tenth wards is carried 
through Richmond and Mathewson streets instead of through Dyer, Dor- 
rance and Cove streets, where for a large part of the way a sewer is now 
built. 

When the present Cove street and Dorrance street sewer 
was built, it was expected that it would form a part of the 
main intercepting sewer and would eventually be extended 
to Olneyville. Experience since that time has shown the 
necessity for retaining this sewer for the exclusive use of the 
district it now serves, which is already as large as can be 
taken care of by a sewer of its dimensions. 

Owing to its location in one of the lowest and flattest por- 


8 CITY DOCUMENT. [ No. 27. 


tions of the city, where the streets are so little above tide- 
water that the sewer und the bottom of the cellars on its line 
must necessarily be very near the same elevation, it becomes 
important to prevent as much as possible the flooding of the 
sewer by water brought from outside of the district it is 
intended to provide ee 

Speaking of this part of the biatriat: Mr. Shedd says, in 
his report of February, 1874 (p.19, last paragraph, ) : “When 
the sewerage system is complete, and the waters of a rain- 
fall are gathered quickly, and carried rapidly to the outlet, 
there will be trouble enough with the drainage of this low 
district, if we keep out of it all the water that it is practi- 
cable to turn in some other course.” The Dorrance street 
district originally contained about 422 acres ; some 262 acres 
were intercepted by the sewer running from Atwell’s avenue 
through Bourn, Jackson, High, Chestnut and Elm streets to 
the river; but in case of a very heavy storm the surplus 
water from the latter district flows down on to the present 
Dorrance street district. It was to remedy the difficulty and 
to take a part at least of this overflow, that the storm sew- 
ers in Aborn and Washington streets and in Chestnut and 
Ship streets were built. 

Although these storm sewers are fulfilling the purposes 
for which they were built, the same reason still exists for 
not extending the territory drained by the Dorrance and 
Cove streets sewer, which would be the case if the Dorrance 
street sewer was extended to Olneyville and used as a part 
of the intercepting sewer. 

The Dorrance street sewer is not deep enough to act as a 
part of the main intercepting sewer, as may be seen on 
Plate No. 2, at Cove street. The intercepting sewer should 
pass under the Dorrance street and all other sewers in order 
to leave them free to act as storm-water overflows. 

As another sewer is required, which is to be used for inter- 
ception only, it leaves us free to go through Ship, Richmond 


REPORT OF CITY ENGINEER. 9 


and Mathewson streets, which is the most direct and the 
shortest route by about 330 feet. 

By intercepting the sewage from the lines crossing this 
part of the main intercepting sewer in this district it reduces 
the amount of sewage carried into Dorrance street sewer, 
and in case of storm the dilution of the overflow from that 
sewer will be much greater. 


Fourth. That he show the main features of a plan for disposing of the 
sewage by means of irrigation at Warwick and at Seekonk Plains, and 
also a plan for the disposal of crude sewage by means of a reservoir or 
otherwise at Field’s Point, and that he show what changes from the plan 
proposed in his report would be necessary for thus disposing of the 
sewage and the relative cost of such plans, and his reasons for the rec. 
ommendations made by him for the disposal of the sewage of the city. 


On the map accompanying this report will be seen the 
lines of the mains (in heavy dotted lines) that will be neces- 
sary if a system of sewage irrigation be adopted either at 
Seekonk Plains or at Warwick. For the Seekonk Plains 
plan the pumping station would be at C., near India Point ; 
the lines of the sewer from the ninth ward would be changed 
from its present position at L. to the line marked K., from 
Plain street to Allen’s avenue; from this point to Langley 
street the grade of the sewer in Allen’s avenue would have 
to run in the opposite direction from that recommended in 
the report of 1884. 

The line of force-main from the pumping station would 
cross the Seekonk river about in the line of the old Washing- 
ton bridge; thence northerly between the railroad and the 
river to near Waterman avenue railroad bridge; thence 
through Massasoit avenue and other streets, crossing the 
Ten Mile river by a siphon to the point marked D. on the 
plan, near the upper end of the only available area on the 
Seekonk Plains. This area is indicated on the plan by 
hatching ; the part so shaded covers about 1,175 acres of land, 


all of which drains towards and into the Ten Mile river. 
9 ° 


10 CITY DOCUMENT. [ No. 27. 


The elevation of the southerly end of this area, on line of 
force-main, is about 64 feet above high tide. At the point 
marked D. it is 81 feet above high tide, with the ground 
still rising slowly towards the north. The elevation of the 
Ten Mile river against this land varies from 42.2 to about 
52 feet above high tide. Upon this territory is a ledge from 
which building stone has been taken; also a large peat 
swamp, while quite a large part is covered by swampy land, 
and will require extensive drainage before it can be utilized. 

From the pumping station at C. to the point marked D. 
it is 26,850 feet, or 5.085 miles. It is estimated that it 
will require three forty-eight inch mains to deliver the max- 
imum amount of sewage at the latter point. But as it will 
be some years before the three are needed, only one line has 
been included in the estimate. 

The estimated cost of the Seekonk Plains’ plan is as fol- 
lows : 


SEEKONK PLAINS’ PLAN FOR 100,000 PEOPLE. 
IRRIGATION. 


For all main and intercepting sewers, includ- 

ing all necessary man-holes, flush-gates, 

regulating chambers, tide-gates, etc., . $2,127,066 89 
For pumping station, with steam pumping 

machinery, boiler, etc., : ; 4 466,298 00 
Land, rights of way, etc., in city, ; - 186,484 OO 


Force-main (1,48 inch), . : , 395,000 00 
Rights of way for same, . : : 20,000 00 
Land, 1,175 acres, . ; ; : : 606,250 00 
Draining, clearing land, etc., . : f 250,000 00 
Pipe distribution on farm, . ; ‘ 60,000 00 


$4,111,098 89 
Plus 15 per cent., : : - 616,664 83 


$4,727,763 72 


REPORT OF CITY ENGINEER. ll 


Furthermore, should the city of Pawtucket ever decide to 
treat its sewage by irrigation or filtration, this would be the 
most available land for this purpose; and it may be well to 
bear in mind that the interests of the city of Providence will 
eventually be effected by the disposal of the sewage of Paw- 
tucket. 

For the Warwick plan the line of force-main is shown as 
leaving the proposed pumping station at Field’s Point and 
running southerly to the high ground just north of Division 
avenue, where it may be necessary to have a short stand-pipe ; 
thence to and through Division avenue to Eddy street ; thence 
by Eddy street and Broad street and Warwick avenue to a 
point in Warwick avenue about 600 feet north of the Spring 
Green school house. <A short branch to the left, marked F., 
will reach a high point from which the sewage can be taken 
by gravity to the area shaded, embracing the John Brown 
Francis farm. The line to the right runs along the high 
ground which separates the water-shed of the Pawtuxet 
river from that of Warwick pond, to the high point marked 
G., near the old Greenwich road, at an elevation of 64 feet 
above mean high water, the highest point on the available 
territory, from which the sewage will flow by gravity on to 
all the shaded portion to the south. The area to the east of 
the Warwick road will drain into the coves on either side. 
The area to the west of the Warwick road and south to the 
first road leading to the left below Hill’s Grove will drain 
into Warwick pond, which has its outlet through Buckeye 
brook into Old Mill creek, and thence into Narragansett 
Bay just below Conimicut Point, a distance of 3.276 miles 
from the pond. 

The area to the south of the first road to the left from the old 
Greenwich road below Hill’s Grove will drain into the two 
brooks shown on the plan, and thence south into Greenwich or 
Coweset Bay, near Buttonwoods and Oakland Beach. The 
distance from the pumping station to the point marked G, is 


12 CITY DOCUMENT. [ No. 27. 


27,500 feet, or 5.208 miles. The distance from G. south to 
H. is 2.69 miles, or it is about 7.9 miles from H. to the 
pumping station. The line E. F. G. H. along the line of 
high ground is 5.384 miles long. The area shaded by hatch- 
ing, covering the land best adapted for irrigation or filtra- 
tion, includes about 2216.0 acres. 


The estimated cost of the Warwick Plains’ plan is as fol- 
lows: 


WARWICK PLAN FOR 100,000 PEOPLE. 
IRRIGATION. 


For all main intercepting sewers as described 

in former report, including all necessary 

man-holes, flush-gates, regulating cham- 

bers, tide-gates, etc., . : A a ho, 109,010 
For pumping station, including engines and 

boiler house, pump well, filth hoists, 


etc., . ; . : Z : : 466,298 00 
Land, rights of way, etc., in city, : : 366,484 O00 
Conduit to Field’s Point for overflow, . ote Oy nee 
Grading, wharf, railroad, and houses for 

superintendent and engineers, : 90,000 00 
Force-main (1,48 inch), . ; 890,621 00 
Land, 2,212 acres, including land for eee 

use, . 3 : 300,000 00 
Grading, bach sbestitites ati dior Hee? 

at ‘$150. 00, : : : : 150,000 00 
Pipe distribution on 1,000 acres, : : 95,400 00 
Two stand-pipes or small reservoirs, . : 40,000 00 


3 $4,243,346 00 
Add 15 per cent., ; : ; 636,501 90 


— 


$4,879,847 90 


REPORT OF CITY ENGINEER. 13 


The float experiments made in 1883, the results of which 
are given in the report of 1884, show that if the sewage 
was to be discharged crude at Field’s Point and allowed to 
flow continuously, it would be brought back into the harbor 
on the incoming or flood-tide, diluted, of course, but pene- 
trating to all points and spreading out over all the shallow 
waters. Some of it would, on the return of the tide, be 
left along the shores and on the flats, which being repeated 
with every tide, would in time produce in the lower harbor 
conditions something like those that are now existing in our 
docks, rivers and cove. In order, therefore, to have the 
sewage carried below and away from Field’s Point, so that as 
little as possible may return to or by the Point, it must be 
stored or held back during the latter part of the outgoing 
tide and the whole of the incoming tide, and discharged 
‘during the first part of the outgoing or ebb-tide, thus requir- 
ing a reservoir large enough to hold, say nine hours’ flow, 
which should have discharging capacity sufficient to empty 
in about two and one-half hours, and be situated as near the 
outlet or discharging point as possible, in order to facilitate 
its rapid discharge. This method of crude disposal has been 
thought by many to be practicable and good enough for the 
present. The committee of civil engineers, in their report 
of August 7, 1876, say: 


“The project of ultimately carrying all the sewage into 
the deep water current at Field’s Point is judicious and 
proper, and should be constantly kept in view in all con- 
structions of marginal or outlet sewers, and in plans for 
right of way for sewers leading towards that point. It is 
probable, that to preserve the sanitary condition of the 
waters of Providence and Seekonk rivers, it will be neces- 
sary to discharge the sewage ordinarily at ebb-tide, and to 
have a reservoir near the outlet to enable this to be done. 
The property of the city on Field’s Point contains a proper 
site for such works.” 


Which, apparently with a vague feeling of uncertainty as 


14 CITY DOCUMENT. [No. 27 


to the sufficiency of the measure, they supplement by the 
following : 


“Should the sewage ever be of sufficient value to justify 
the use of it for irrigation, this point will be the position 
from which it can be most easily carried to the dry plains, 
on either side of the Pawtuxet river, by pumping it toa 
sufficient height for distribution.” 


Had precipitation at that time been a practical success, 
as it has since become, it would probably have been included 
in the then future possibilities. On Plate 6 will be seen 
a profile of a conduit and such a reservoir as would be re- 
quired if the plan of crude disposal were to be adopted. 


The estimated cost of such a plan is as follows : 


CRUDE DISPOSAL FOR 100,000 PEOPLE. 


For all main intercepting sewers as in War- 
wick plan, . : i ; , » $2,195,973 00 
Pumping station, with steam pumping machin- 


ery, boiler, etc., : ; ! : 253,600 00 
Land, rights of way, etc., . f . 866,484 00 
Grading, railroad wharf, buildings, att <n ae 95,500 00 
Conduit, pumping station to reservoir, : 148,570 00 


Reservoir to hold nine hours’ maximum flow, 183,371 16 


$3,243,498 16 
Add 15 per cent., : : - 486,524 72 


$3,730,022 88 


In case crude disposal is adopted, the sewage from the 
eighth and ninth wards will require pumping; whereas, in 
case precipitation is adopted, this sewage will flow by gray- 
ity into the tanks, from which the effluent will flow into the 
river. 


For answer to “his reasons for the recommendations made 


REPORT OF CITY. ENGINEER. 15 


” 


by him for the disposal of the sewage of the city,” see last 


page of this report. 


RECAPITULATION. 


Seekonk Plains’ plan (irrigation), : wT eAute (etuatie 
Warwick Plains’ plan (irrigation), : . 4,879,847 90 
Crude disposal, : : i . 8,780,022 88 
Precipitation (plan ataabuady; é : . 38,699,504 00 


If the methods of irrigation or filtration be adopted, either 
at Seekonk Plains or at Warwick, it will involve a large 
addition to the annual cost of pumping over pumping into 
precipitation tanks, owing to the difference of elevation to 
which it will be necessary to pump the sewage in order to 
reach these places. ; 

The same thing occurs if crude disposal be adopted, the 
water having to be pumped to a higher level than for pre- 
cipitation. 

The estimates given for the various plans include the con- 
struction only, and therefore do not show the relative cost 
of pumping or of maintenance. 

The idea unfortunately prevails to a greater or less extent 
that sewage is of value and may be disposed of at a profit. 
The sooner we rid ourselves of this erroneous notion, the 
better shall we be prepared to justly consider the subject. 

The following quotations are taken from the second and 
final report of the Royal Commission on Metropolitan Sew- 
age Discharge, appointed by the British Government for 
the purpose of inquiring into the effects of the discharge of 
the sewage of the metropolis into the river Thames. This 
report was made in 1884. 

Testimony given by 


Sir Robert Rawlinson. 


*¢16,990-1. The Edinburgh case is an instructive one. It ought 
to be considered that sewage to have value must have certain natural 


16 CITY .DOCUMENT. [No. 27. 


facilities, such as cheap land, and a free outlet to the sea. On 
neither side of the estuary of the Thames could you attempt to carry 
out such an experiment as the Craigentinny experiment. 

‘¢16,996-7. If sewage is to be valued at what it is worth the whole 
year round, you could not put more than $d. per ton upon it, but if 
you valued it at what it is worth for a farmer to take it»when he 
wanted it, and to leave it alone when he did not want it, he could 
afford to pay you 2d. a ton for it. 

‘17,076. Sewage cultivation depends on the weather. The sea- 
sons in this climate are uncertain and unfavourable. 

‘sSewage produce is not like ordinary produce, it must either be 
used at once or it is wasted. 

‘©17,079-84. Utilizmg the produce from a sewage farm to the 
extent of 30,000 or 40,000 acres would be a wonderful thing. 

‘*Then again prejudice is excited against sewage-grown produce, 
which very much retards its sale, so that neither the milk nor the 
vegetables from a sewage farm will be bought if it is known. This 
prejudice, however, is not well grounded.” 


Sir John Lawes. 


**18,209-11. My impression is that if you distribute sewage 
upon land you gain nothing by it. It is of small value in the state 
in which you have it, being enormously diluted with water, and that 
water being very difficult to get rid of, especially in the valley of the 
Thames, and the quantity being greater in winter when you want 
your land drier. You have a rich soil all the way:down the valley 
of the Thames, not at all suited to take sewage ; you have everything 
against you. 

**18,253-6, 18,320. To enable a town to dispose of its sewage 
profitably it should be situated on the top of a hill; it should have at 
its disposal a sufficient area of light porous soil under pasture, this 
land being at a sufficient distance from houses for the sewage not 
to be a nuisance. Not one of these advantages is possessed by Lon- 
don, but the contrary. 

‘© 18,297-308. The Craigentinny meadows have everything in 
their favour. ; 

‘©18,320. Sewage would command a certain value if delivered on 
the land free of expense, but its value is not sufficient to pay for the 
cost of pumping and distribution to any distance. 

‘*Tt is admitted at the present time that the agricultural value of 
sewage is much less than the cost of its removal from towns, and 
that the towns and not the country must bear the greater portion of 
the charges connected with its removal. 

‘* Whatever process may be adopted the outlay must be very great | 
and entail an additional burthen upon the ratepayers of the metrop- 


olis.”’ 


REPORT OF CITY ENGINEER. se 


Dr. Voelcker. 

*¢ 18,326. The manurial value of sewage, generally speaking, is 
of a negative character, 7. ¢., it costs more to utilize it than it is 
intrinsically worth.” 

Dr. Tidy. 

*©18,571. The local authorities always will getit into their heads 
that they ought to make their sewage pay; whereas sewage is a 
great ugly thing that one has to spend money on to prevent its being 
a trouble and a cause of nuisance. You will never make sewage 
pay, Iam convinced of that. This idea of making it pay is a pure 
myth.” 


Sir F. Abel. 


** 19,047. I agree that it is impossible to deal with the sewage 
in reference to its manurial value.” 


Mr. Baldwin Latham. 


*¢19,220-31. ‘There is no doubt in my mind that where land has 
to be acquired at a very expensive rate by sanitary authorities, there 
is no process that will ever pay for the utilizing of sewage. It must 
be looked upon as a dead loss in whatever way you have to deal with 
it. The question is how to get rid of it most cheaply. 

‘* Croydon has a very large farm close to London, with consequently 
every facility to get rid of the produce, and in some years the author- 
ities have lost as much as 12,000/. a year by applying the sewage to 
the land. It is very porous soil, and very suitable for applying sew- 
age. 

‘*In many farms the actual return per acre is very large, but it is 
swallowed up by the expenses on the other side.” 


Alderman Avery. 
*¢ 19,546. I am very much afraid that every 7s. 6d. that we 


obtain from the sewage farm costs us rather more than 7s. 6d. to 
produce.” : 


“Mr. Bailey-Denton, one of the strongest advocates of the 
application of sewage to land, puts in (Q. 18,653-9) a table 
of 20 towns so treated, showing a profit per acre sometimes 
as high as 7/.,and giving an average of 2/. 13s. This, 
however, is simply the difference between the expenditure 
on production and the income from crops obtained. It does 
not include interest on capital, nor the cost of pumping, nor 
rent of land. He adds: 

3 


18 CITY DOCUMENT. [ No. 27. 


“18,710, I think we ought not to get rid of such valuable matter 
altogether. If you cannot turn it to account at present, the time 
may come when you will be able to do so. I look forward to the 
time when there will be found a means of turning sewage to profita- 
ble account.”’ 


‘<The most remarkable evidence, however, on this point 
is that of Mr. L. S. Brundell, a civil engineer much expe- 
rienced in sewage works, and for many years engineer to 
the corporation of Doncaster. His experience is especially 
pertinent to this question, as his opening statement will 
show. 


‘17,786. In 1872, when the Doncaster Sewage Farm was com- 
pleted, there was a great idea that sewage was avery valuable thing ; 
and as the corporation were not able to meet with a tenant in the 
ordinary way, four of us, none of us farmers, but all engineers, took 
the farm upon a lease for 14 years. The four consisted of myself, 
my brother, and James and Edward Easton, and we thought that 
we would see what could be done with the sewage under what we 
believed would be very intelligent and scientific management. We 
took the Doncaster Sewage Farm, and have worked it ever since, for 
11 years, and we now know pretty well what the value of the sew- 
age 1s, which we did not know then. We shared the general im- 
pression that sewage was a very valuable thing if properly applied.” 


‘¢ Mr. Brundell describes fully the circumstances, and the 
result is that the outside net value of the sewage at Doncas- 
ter, utilizing it as best they can, is 3007. a year. The 
average quantity is 1,134,339 tons a year, which gives a 
net value of about ;4, of a penny per ton, or the farm being 
300 acres, it is equal to 1/. per acre per annum. But this 
does not include interest of money, or the cost of pumping, 
which is done by the corporation and costs 300/. a year. So 
that the value of the sewage is just about the cost of the 
pumping, having sunk the money in carrying out the 
works. It is admitted, however, as some compensation, 
that the land is, by the application of the sewage, becoming 
permanently improved, and consequently increased in 
value.” 


‘We may observe that it would be difficult to find per- 
sons more capable than the gentlemen who tried the experi- 
ment above described.” 


~REPORT OF CITY ENGINEER. 19 


"193. There can be no doubt that the preponderance of 
the evidence is against the idea that the sewage of the 
metropolis can, at present, be applied by Irrige ition so as to 
be a source of profit to the ratepayers.” 


“198. Looking now to the whole of the evidence we 
have obtained on the prospect of profit from the utilization 


of sewage, we are of opinion— 


“1. That the most likely mode to obtain a profit from the 
utilization of sewage is by irrigation; but that, in the 
present state of knowledge of the subject, there is no hope 
of any town doing so consistently with the due attainment 
of the more important object, the purification of the sewage. 
In some very favourable cases (as in Edinburgh) a profit 
may be made without purification, and very frequently the 
purification may be effected without profit, but the two can- 
not apparently be combined.” 


* * * * * * * * * 


“217. It will be now understood that the essential dif- 
ference between the intermittent filtration system and that 
of ordinary broad irrigation is as follows: 


“Broad irrigation means the distribution of sewage over a 
large surface of ordinary agricultural ground, having in view 
a maximum growth of vegetation (consistently with due 


purification) for the amount of sewage supplied. 


“Filtration means the concentration of sewage, at short 
intervals, on an area of specially chosen porous ground, as 
small as will absorb and cleanse it; not excluding vegeta- 
tion, but making the produce of secondary importance. 


The intermittency of application is a stre gua non even in 
suitably constituted soils, wherever complete success is 
aimed at. No instance of failure, says Mr. Denton, can be 
pointed out where careful underdrainage and suitable prepa- 
ration of surface with proper periods of rest have been 
adopted; whereas the cases are unfortunately becoming 
numerous in which defective effluents are discharged, and 
considerable nuisance is created on the surface, when large 
quantities of sewage are poured on without regulated peri- 
odical application.” 


2() CITY DOCUMENT. [ No. 27. 


“221. With regard to filtration through land, we are of 
opinion,— ; 

“1. That the process has great scientific merit, and offers 
valuable practical advantages for the disposal of sewage in 
situations where broad irrigation is impracticable, and where 
land suitable for filtration can be obtained. 

“2. That, however, it appears desirable, when the area of 
land is considerably reduced, that the sewage should be pre- 
viously treated by some efficient process for removing the 
sludge. 

“3. That an arrangement of this kind would be applica- 
ble to the metropolis, as we shall explain more fully here- 
after.” 


Further quotations from this and from other authorities 
could be made, but these are sufficient to show that it is the 
opinion of those best able to judge, that sewage disposal as 
a general thing cannot be made profitable, but on the con- 
trary will prove an expense. 


Some have feared that precipitation works located at Field’s 
Point would constitute a nuisance. This point is well met 
by the following quotations, and by a letter and report on 
the sewerage works at Coventry, received from J. C. Mel- 
liss, an engineer of very high repute in England. 


Mr. Melliss writes: 


‘¢ Lonpon, February 9, 1886. 
‘* DEAR SIR: 

‘¢T am in receipt of yours of 29th January last, wherein you ask 
for my unqualified opinion as to nuisance or inconvenience arising 
from precipitation works. My opinion is founded upon some 12 or 
14 years’ practical experience with such works in this country, and 
it is most decidedly that if precipitation works are properly designed 
and constructed and properly managed, any person outside of the 
walls of the works would not know of their existence. In other 
words, there is no smell perceptible outside the enclosive walls of the 
works. 


REPORT OF CITY ENGINEER. 21 


‘* This view of precipitation works is now generally accepted by 
authorities in this country. There are, of course, many people who, 
from inexperience, are alarmed at the mention of such works being 
anywhere, but it is a necessity that they must be somewhere, and if 
properly carried out, they are less objectionable than tanneries, gas 
works, skin works, and many other manufactories. The accompa- 
nying plan and photograph I prepared six years ago to show the 
proximity of the Coventry precipitation works to houses of a good 
class. These works have been in operation about 11 years and there 
is no complaint. Whilty Abbey is a fine old mansion, and the gen- 
tleman (Mr. Petre) who lives there is quite satisfied. 


‘¢ Two years ago I put up and started precipitation works at Leyton, 
dealing with a population of 40,000 persons. You will see by the 
photograph I send you that the works are surrounded by houses at 
no great distance, and not only is there no complaint, but the Clerk 
to the Board of Health told me only this week that people pass by 
and do not even notice the works. JI am now designing works for a 
portion of the Thames Valley, viz.: Richmond, Kew, Mortlake, 
ete., etc., where there are parks and good houses in abundance. 
Then again, there are houses in close proximity to the precipitation 
works of Wimbledon, Birmington, and especially at Chiswick, where 
the precipitation works, dealing with a population of 20,000 persons, 
are only 270 yards distant from the Park gate and lodge, and only 
420 yards from the residence itself of ‘ Devonshire House,’ the resi- 
dence of the Duke of Devonshire, one of the most wealthy noblemen 
in this country. Further than this, the Duke himself sold the land 
for these works, and to show that his residence is not injured he has 
recently let it to the Marquis of Bute, another very wealthy man, 
who is now residing there. Iam sure these facts ought to doa 
great deal to allay alarm in the minds of your citizens. * * * * 

‘¢ Although I am satisfied that if properly designed and managed 
there is no smell outside of the works themselves, I would, on senti- 
mental grounds, not select to place precipitation works in a park if 
any other site were available. * * * * 

‘¢ Of this you may be quite confident, that persons residing at a dis- 
tance of 2,000 feet from the works would not know that they were 
near to any works of the kind. 


22 CITY DOCUMENT. [Nowave 


‘¢T conclude, of course, that your works will embrace all the 
modern and most approved arrangements and appliances, and that it 
is intended they shall be properly managed. * * * * 


‘¢ Yours very truly, 
J.C. MELLISS. 
‘¢SAMUEL M. Gray, C. E.” 


The following report on the Coventry Sewage Works 
accompanied the above letter : 


v< Ter veg 
» oe.’ 4 
. ies 


.* ~* 


a ata 
an ae 


BOs 885 'E 


ee 


MAP OF THE 
CITY OF PROVIDENCE 


together withthe CITY OF PAWTUCKET ana parts of the 


TOWNS OF foe 2s AY, < 
I - Pear 
EAST PROVIDENCE, CRANSTON AND WARWICK \ | 
Showing the lines of oe SEWERS in the City of Providence \ ai | 
and the Territory referred to in connection with \ & 


SEW. e IRRIGATION aa 


and the lines of MAINS leading to the same 
CETY ENGINEERS OFFICE. 
PRIL 1886, ao 


fo} ovepvicee! 


m= EE 
i] 
Fa eet 


anal 


t oh ee | 7 
( oes / Snare 
wer Ge 


Fly 


ui 
gall 


aA 


Bova pie v00q Ut opus 


— 


ra 


= 


Bullock's Cove 


\ ae 


1s. 
Sy fommiiewt Pt 
2 ode 
V4 
Le 
een { 
| 
by 
!) = 
( | 
| 
' 
L. ychy Pt. 


entertain a 


Bu S 


CowEsET or 


GREEN Bay a cee \ = Shawomet /!or 7 
eet. pttttiteee a 2 Nee 2m as S) warwick | Neck f 
a at 7 ie a 7 
———————— —— = 


PLAN OF 
E COVENTRY SEWAGE WORKS AND VICINITY 
AT WHITLEY. 


Scale. 
700 


ORDNANCE MAP OF WHITLEY. 
Scale 1 Inch to a Mile. 


NOTE. Position of Coventry Sewage 
Works, tinted Red ux. 


VIEW OF WORKS 


FROM SOUTH EAST. 


WHITLEY 
ABBEY 


NOW OCCLIPLER —e “4 B ; 
Quarters ffs ,, Se sy ; Noten Saee = a 
/ Ps ee a Ne Nee The Restdence of E.. Petre, Esq’: 


Wire ed hy Po AGRA 


te Royal Oak {ar 


& Téa Gardria 


Re. Noe of J. Cole. 
Mee aque 


. The Sherburne is a smail 
shallow Stream, often, containing 
wl \ little else than the Eftlaent Water 
8&1 Effluent Water Culvert & Outfall leading 13. Man Holes & Ventilating Shatis to 1 - Sa : \ from the Sewage Works. 


. , uildings contauung Milburns Sludge Drying 
A ery. ‘ ene. The wholo of these a Benet by ‘the from Tanks on to Filtering Beas. Undergound Drains. 


J.C. MELLISS, 


2 Buildings comprising Straining House. Engine House with eo o : ie ; . 
OHP Sum ee aie ieepe aces Vats, Office, \\\\ aint, are now ur disuse . 9. Effluent Water Wars. . 14. ae pieatid eal are REFERENCES 
& Chenucal Works. These latter os denoted by the \\\\tint, — 5 Implement. Store, part of Old orks. WE fnent Hater Outtill from Filter Beds into _ Water on to Filrering f | Bae —— 
Pe Tego 6. Precipitation Tanks each containing 225,000 Gallons. | Ruer Sherburne. 5, Embankmants tormung Pathways . mg, 
3 Building contairang lame Mixing Vats.& 10 HP SteanvEngine. 7. Underground Sludge Chambers. 1. Man Holes. = \ 
a = SSS == ee ee 


REPORT OF CITY ENGINEER. 23 


THE 
RIVERS PURIFICATION ASSOCIATION, 
LIMITED. 


THE COVENTRY SEWAGE WORKS, 
SITUATED AT WHITLEY, 


ILLUSTRATED BY PLANS, VIEWS, &C., SHOWING THEIR CLOSE PROX- 
IMITY TO FIRST-CLASS RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY, THEIR PERFECT 
FREEDOM FROM ALL NUISANCE, AND THEIR COMPLETE SANI- 
TARY AND ECONOMICAL SUCCESS. 


Dr. VOELCKER, F. R. S., says:—‘‘ Numerous experiments with all 
kinds of precipitating agents, and the experience of others on a large 
scale, have led me to the conclusion that by far the most efficacious and, 
on the whole, the most economical precipitating agent is crude sulphate 
of alumina, assisted by the addition of just enough lime to render the 
effluent slightly alkaline, and to effect the complete precipitation of the 
alumina from the crude sulphate.”—Journal of the Royal Agricultural 
Society of England, No. xxviii. 


OCTOBER, 1880. 


DIRECTORS. 

Tue Rigutr Hon. THE LoRD ELIBANK (Chairman), Darn Hall, Eddles- 
ton, N. B. 

Mayor GEORGE MANNERS ONSLOW, Naval & Military Club, Picca- 
dilly, W. 


H. FREDERICK TWYNAM, Esq., 10, Down Street, Piccadilly, W. 
DOUGLAS ARTHUR ONSLOW, Esq., J.P., 14, Waverley Place, St. 
John’s Wood, N. W. 
LONDON BANKERS. 
THE LONDON & WESTMINSTER BANK, St. James’s Square Branch 


SOLICITORS. 
Messrs. TUCKER & LAKE, 4, Serle Street, Lincoln’s Inn, W. C. 


MANAGING DIRECTOR. 
DOUGLAS ARTHUR ONSLOW, Esq. 


AUDITOR. 
ULYSSES LATREILLE, Fsq., 232, Gresham House, E. C. 
ENGINEER. 
JOHN CHARLES MELLISS, Esq., C. E., A. Memb. Inst. C. E. 
OFFICES. 


232, GRESHAM HOUSE, OLD BROAD STREET, LONDON, E. C. 


24 CITY DOCUMENT. [ No. 27. 


THE RIVERS PURIFICATION ASSOCIATION, 


LIMITED. 


The Coventry Works of the Rivers Purification Associa- 
tion, Limited, have now been in continuous operation for a 
period of more than six years. The complete success 
attending the operations there, both in a sanitary as well as 
an economical point of view, induces the Association to give 
publicity to the accompanying testimony, of impartial 
authorities, with a view of aiding the removal of that preju- 
dice which has so long existed against sewage purification 
works in the immediate locality of residential property. 
The Association, in taking this step, would wish to express 
their thanks to those gentlemen who have voluntarily 
afforded their testimony, and who, by so doing, are not only 
rendering them assistance in their work, but also supporting 
an undertaking which supplies a long-felt national want. 


The facts to which the Association would ask attention 


are as follow: 


I. That sewage works, where a good and proper 
process is employed and thoroughly carried 
out, if conducted with ordinary care, are quite 
free from causing any nuisance. 


II. That the effluent water obtained at Coventry is 
shown, by analyses of effluent waters produced 
at various sewage works made by Dr. Angus 
Smith, F. R. S., and Dr. William Wallace, 
F. R. 8. E., City Analyst for Glasgow, to be 
the best. 


II. That the cost of the operations at Coventry 
will be found upon examination and investi- 


REPORT OF CITY ENGINEER. 25 


gation to be cheaper than lime treatment, 
modifications of lime treatment, or land irri- 
gation in the majority of instances. 


IV. That the means now being adopted at Coven- 
try to reduce the sludge to a portable condi- 
tion will have the effect of still further reduc- 
ing the cost, as hitherto the manure (in con- 
sequence of its non-portable state) has not 
found a ready sale, and it is now confidently 
predicted that it will do so. 


V. That the success which has followed the oper- 
ations at Coventry (where salts of alumina, 
iron, &c., are used under eminent chemical 
advice) cannot be employed to encourage the 
lime, or modifications of lime treatment, or 
any untried process. 


The following correspondence dates from the establish- 
ment of the works in April, 1574, up to the present time, 
and shows the efficiency of the operations and their complete 
freedom from any nuisance. 


FINHAM PARK, KENILWORTH, 


14th July, 1874. 
DEAR SIR, 


In answer to your inquiry as to the pollution of the River Sher- 
bourne, I beg to say it has very considerably abated since the late altera- 
tions at the Sewage Works. I have not seen a dead fish since, but have 
noticed large numbers of them enjoying themselves by flirting out of the 
water during the late hot weather. 

There is a considerable quantity of mud on the banks, the accumulation 
of past time, which, no doubt, the winter floods will carry away, and 
then, Ihave no doubt, we shall find a still further improvement. 


Believe me, dear sir, 
Yours faithfully, 


JAMES WESTON. 
J. C. MELLISS, Esq. 


4 


26 CITY DOCUMENT. [ No. 27. 


FINHAM PARK, KENILWORTH, 
23rd February, 1875. 
DEAR SIR, 
Ilaid your note of the 19th instant aside, and did not think of it 
until to-day. 

Respecting putting my communications in print, you are quite at lib- 
erty to do so; and what I have said to you on former occasions is fully 
confirmed by what I have noticed of the river since. 

Believe me, dear sir, 
Yours faithfully, 
JAMES WESTON. 

J. C. MELLISS, Esq. 


WHITLEY VILLA, NEAR COVENTRY, 
26th February, 1877. 
DEak SIR, 

In reply to your letter, I have much pleasure in stating that I con- 
sider the works and process for purifying the River Sherbourne are per- 
fectly successful. Living as I do in close proximity to the works, I 
should be the first to suffer were they obnoxious or offensive, but I am 
glad to say I have no fault to find, and consider Whitley as healthy as 
any place in the district. 

I may add incidentally that the value of the property here has lately 
increased, I myself having raised my tenants’ rents. 
I remain, dear sir, 
Yours truly, 
THOMAS L. GILLOTT. 
E. F. CoDvINGTON, Esq. 


WHITLEY ABBEY, COVENTRY, 
5th March, 1877. 
DeEaR SIR, 

In reply to your letter, I can confidently state that the River Sher- 
bourne has been very much improved since the Sewage Works at Coven- 
try have been in operation; the water at present is perfectly clear, and 
as far as I have been able tu judge, the works and process appear to me 


to be successful. 
Yours faithfully, 


EDWARD PETRE. 
E. F. CODDINGTON, Esq. 


At a meeting of the Council of the City of Coventry, held at the Justice 
Room, Saint Mary’s Hall, in the said City, on Tuesday, the 27th day of 
March, 1877, 


REPORT OF CITY ENGINEER. 27 


Mr. ALDERMAN BANKS, Mayor, in the Chair, 
Ir WAS RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY— 


That the system for treating the Sewage of this City by precipitation 
having been in use since the 30th April, 1874 (a period of nearly three 
years), this Council are well satisfied with its sanitary success, and that 
the same be certified under the Common Seal and given to the Rivers 
Purification Association, Limited, with a statement appended thereto, 
that this Council have entered into a contract with them to continue to 
carry on the said system of purifying the Sewage of this City in consid- 
eration of an adequate annual subsidy to the said Association. 


In testimony whereof the Common 
Seal of the Mayor, Aldermen, and Citi- 
zens of the City of Coventry is hereunto 
affixed the 27th day of March, 1877. 

(Signed) J. E. BANKS, 
Mayor. 


[Seal of the Corporation. ] 


WHITLEY ABBEY, COVENTRY, 
8th August, 1877. 
My Dear Sir, 

I was very much pleased on my return home, about a fortnight ago, 
to see and feel the improvement in the state of the River Sherbourne. 
There is really nothing to complain of now, and if it can only be main- 
tained in its present condition I do not think I am likely to trouble your 
Corporation any more on the subject. I must at the same time tender 
my thanks to the Corporation for the successful efforts they have made 


towards remedying this nuisance. 
I remain, 


Yours faithfully, 
EDWARD PETRE. 


T. Browett, Esq., Town Clerk, Coventry. 


Notre.—tThe fact that this gentleman had been, previously to the erection of the pres- 
tent sewage works, in litigation with the Corporation for polluting the river, increases 
he strength of the testimony given by his letter. 


RoyaL Oak INN AND TEA GARDENS, WHITLEY, 
October, 5th, 1880. 


To the RIVERS PURIFICATION ASSOCIATION. 


GENTLEMEN, 
I have now kept this Inn for four years, and during that period I 
have never had occasion tocomplain of any nuisance arising either from 


28 CITY DOCUMENT. [ No. 27. 


your works or the filter beds, notwithstanding that the latter join my Tea 
Gardens, and the works are so close; nor have my numerous customers 
ever found fault, or my trade been injured. 
Yours truly, 
WALTER BUTLER. 


14, Priory Row, COVENTRY, 
October 11th, 1880. 
GENTLEMEN, 

Having lived at Whitley ever since the sewage works were opened, I 
have great pleasure in saying that I have never perceived any disagree- 
able smell arising from them, and the river which flows past my house, 
and which nine years ago was almost unbearable, is now clear and no 
nuisance whatever. 

Yours, &c., 
J. G. C. GRAHAM. 
Messrs. THE RIVERS PURIFICATION ASSOCIATION, LIMITED. 


WHITLEY ABBEY, COVENTRY, 


18th December, 1880. 
DEAR SIR, 


I have great pleasure in confirming my letters of the 5th March and 
8th August, 1877, as to the Purification of the River Sherbourne by your 
Association, JI have had no reason to complain since that date; nor dol 
believe that those living in the neighbourhood of the Works are subjected 


to any nuisance by them. 
I remain, 


Yours faithfully, 
E. F. CODDINGTON, Esq., EDWARD PETRE. 
Manager, Rivers Purification Association, Whitley. 


The Local Government Board, with the object of sanction- 
ing sewage purification by precipitation or chemical treat- 
ment, recently caused an investigation of certain processes 
which are in operation in different parts of England to be 
made. These investigations were conducted by Dr. Angus 
Smith, F. R.S., one of the inspectors under the Rivers Pol- 
lution Prevention Act of 1876. Dr. Angus Smith says in his 
report dated October, 1879—*“ The use of precipitation has 
‘‘a decided advantage in wet weather, as it raises the purity 
“of the Coventry water above the Aldershot wet specimen.” 


REPORT OF CITY ENGINEER. 29 


And further—“ The Coventry efluent went into a stream 
“which was very impure, and it might, so far as appearance 
“went, pass into a shallow mountain stream without being 
“noticed.” 

The difficulty hitherto experienced in the disposal of 
sludge has received much and careful consideration (as no 
works can be considered satisfactory until the sludge is 
properly dealt with), and after careful investigation and 
practical experiments with various systems of pressing, the 
Rivers Purification Association have succeeded in one which 
in every respect carries out the necessary requirements with 
simplicity and good results, viz., that of Messrs. S. H. 
Johnson & Co., of Stratford, E., and Mr. N. Nutter, their 
agent, 71, Cornhill, E. C. They have now perfected their 
Coventry works by the introduction of this system, and 
what has so long been known as the sludge difficulty has 
been effectually overcome. It is confidently believed that 
in consequence of this mode of dealing with the sludge it 
will, in future, find a more ready sale than it has hitherto. 
It is an important fact to be borne in mind that the process 
in use at. Coventry produces much less bulk of sludge than 
other processes, and only one-half as much as that produced 
by lime treatment, while in quality it bears a much higher 
manurial valuew* Ptr * 0 * 

That the cost of the system employed at Coventry is less 
than that involved by land irrigation and sewage farming, in 
a majority of cases, is fully shown in pamphlets published 
by the Rivers Purification Association in October, 1879, 
and August, 1881, as well as elsewhere. That it is less 
than lime treatment is shown by the fact that it costs only 
£3 3s. 7d. per million gallons of sewage; while at Birming- 
ham and Bradford, where lime is employed, the cost is 
respectively £5 2s. 61d. and £3 4s. 94d. per million gallons. 
And this difference of cost is not due altogether to the dis- 
posal of the larger quantity of sludge produced by lime 


30 CITY DOCUMENT. [ No. 27. 


treatment ; the chemicals employed at Coventry are also less 
expensive than lime, being for sewage without dye 12s. 10d. 
per million gallons, while lime treatment costs 14s. per 
million gallons. : 


The following quotations are from the report of the Royal 
Commission before referred to: 


“169. In 1880 the Corporation of Glasgow (as the Bir- 
mingham Corporation had done nearly ten years before ) 
appointed a committee to inquire into the various methods of 
sewage treatment, with a view to the purification of the 
Clyde. We may give a few extracts from their report, 
dated 1st September 1880. 


‘‘ Probably the only proposition of universal acceptance is that crude 
sewage cannot be disposed of anywhere, by any means, without 
nuisance orrisk of nuisance. Whether poured into arunning stream, 
a tidal river, or the open sea, or distributed on an extended area of 
land, it is certain that, at some time or other, it will make its pres- 
ence felt. Some clarifying process whereby the whole of the sus- 
pended impurities, at least, shall be removed, seems to be an indis- 
pensable preface even to discharge into the sea or to irrigation. 

‘¢ There are processes of precipitation now in operation which give 
an effluent capable of being discharged into a river with perfect 
inoffensiveness, and without sensibly destroying its purity, provided 
always that the volume of the sewage is small compared with that 
of the river. 

‘* The success or otherwise of a precipitation process depends largely 
upon details in the arrangement, construction, and management of 
the various parts of the work. The best process may fail by neglect 
of these details. No offence originates from the mere treatment of 
the sewage when these details are attended to. 

‘The sewage sludge is the troublesome, not to say dangerous, ele- 
ment in all such processes, especially that from lime precipitation, 
which changes more rapidly than that produced by the action of 
alumina or oxide of iron. ‘The first and absolutely essential pre- 
liminary to the adoption of any method of treatment by precipita- 
tion is to arrange for the systematic removal of the sludge from the 
works. To begin sewage treatment without this is sure to end in a 
gigantic nuisance, and to become involved in an almost hopeless 
struggle to suppress it. 


REPORT OF CITY ENGINEER. 31 


‘¢ Sewage sludge can be disposed of in four ways; it may be com- 
pressed into portable cakes; or it may be conveyed in a semi fluid 
condition to the open sea; or it may be used to make up waste land ; 
or it may be dug into ground, so producing a highly fertile soil. 

‘¢ Whatever be the process of chemical purification to which the 
sewage is subjected, the effluent is still impure, and will putrefy and 
give off noxious gas if kept for some time; and we know of no way 
in which the purification can be completed but oxidation. Filtration 
through cultivated land, 2. e., irrigation, is probably the best means. 
But oxidation of the effluent may in most cases be effected by the 
simple and natural process of running it into the nearest watercourse, 
when, if the proportion of clean water be sufficient, the organic 
matter will be gradually oxidised, and the effluent water will not 
become putrid or offensive in any way ever in warm weather.” 


“Mr. Harrison reported on the 28th February, 1884, in 
favour of the application. The following passages of his 
report refer to the main objections. He said that the chem- 
icals proposed— 


‘*Act both chemically and mechanically, and effect not only clarifi- 
cation and deodorization of the sewage, but a considerable amount of 
purification,: by diminishing the quantity of organic carbon and 
nitrogen in solution in the sewage. 

‘¢Tam not aware that there was any evidence which proved that any 
nuisance would arise from the process if it were properly conducted. 

‘¢ The joint board proposed to adopt the best known chemical sys- 
tem. 

‘*T have seen the process of compressing the sludge at Aylesbury 

and Leyton, and am satisfied that it can be carried out without creat- 
ing any nuisance. The cakes formed are firm and almost devoid of 
smell. I do not anticipate that any nuisance will arise either at 
Mortlake or Rainham from the method of disposing of the sludge. 
- ‘* J feel confident that under good management the treatment of the 
sewage as proposed would not create any nuisance in the neighbor- 
hood, and that the effluent might be discharged into the Thames at 
all times of the tide without any danger of its injuriously affecting 
that river.” 


“232. At first it was supposed that the precipitate would 
be valuable as manure, and some trouble was taken to dry the 
sludge and bring it into a convenient shape for transport and 
sale. But since its low value has become better known, it 
has been found necessary to get rid of it in the most con- 
venient way possible. This has been found difficult, and the 


32 CITY DOCUMENT. [No. 27. 


manipulation and storage of the sludge have been trouble- 
some, expensive, and the cause of great nuisance. 

“Of late years, however, a mode of treating it has been 
introduced which has been of great benefit. This is by an 
ingenious machine now used in many manufacturing pro- 
cesses called a ‘filter press.’ It is so contrived that when 
a portion of the sludge is introduced into it and subjected to 
mechanical pressure a large proportion of the water is 
squeezed out, and the sludge becomes consolidated into com- 
pact cakes. These cakes are found to contain about 50 per 
cent. of water, and consequently the amount of precipitate 
becomes reduced to 90 or 100 grains per gallon of sewage, 
giving 1 ton of pressed sludge for, say, 165,000 gallons. 

“The cost of this pressing process is considerable, being 
given by Mr. Mansergh, Q. 19,211, at about 3s. 6d. per ton 
of pressed cake. But there is no doubt that it has been of 
great advantage to the chemical processes for treating sew- 
age, as it has removed one of the most formidable objections 
to which they have been liable. 

“Some of us have visited sewage works where the sludge 
presses are in action, and we have found that the process 
can be carried on without danger of causing nuisance to the 
surrounding neighbourhood ; and that, when suitable chem- 
icals are used, the cakes have no unpleasant smell. 

“Tf a market can be found for them on account of any fer- 
tilizing value they may contain, they are in the best form for 
sale and for application; or if any other mode of disposal 
is necessary, the form is convenient for transport. 

“We need not recapitulate the evidence in regard to the 
sludge generally ; there is plenty of testimony to the diffi- 
culty it has caused, but we think the fact that this difficulty 
can now be got over, at a certain cost, has been sufficiently 
proved. 

“ We may therefore confine our extracts to references to 
the peculiar case of the metropolis.” 


* Possible Nuisance from the Works. 


“236. On this head it must suffice to say that having 
visited works where precipitating processes are in opera- 
tion, we do not anticipate that, if they are constructed and 
managed with proper knowledge and care, they will cause 
any material nuisance to the neighbourhood where they are 
situated.” 


REPORT OF CITY ENGINEER. 33 


“General Remarks. 

“238. There are two great advantages in the adoption 
of a precipitation process. In the first place it may be 
brought into action more speedily than any other remedy ; 
and, secondly, if it should be desirable at any time to adopt 
some different plan, it can be abandoned, with only the com- 
paratively small loss of the outlay on the fixed works.” 


fifth. That he show in detail the cost of the parts necessary for pre- 
cipitation in the plan recommended. 


ESTIMATED COST OF THE PARTS OF THE WORKS 
NECESSARY FOR PRECIPITATION. 

Tanks, ; : : : : ; eeeoo L000 200 

Connections, floats, etc., : . : . 14,000 00 

Filter press and engine, ; ; : . 30,000 00 

Buildings, storehouse, etc., . , : . 20,000 00 


$145,300 00 


Sixth. That he show whether manufacturing waste can be discharged 
into the proposed sewers from the various manufactories. 


MANUFACTURING WASTE. 


On Plate 2, on the line to Olneyville, it will be seen that 
the sewer, after passing under the Woonasquatucket river, 
passes below the bottoms of the pump-wells of both the 
Atlantic and the Riverside mills at such a depth that these 
mills can drain into the sewer by gravity. ‘The same is true 
of the line all the way to Manton bridge, shown on Plate 4. 
Also on Plate 2, the line on Promenade street and Valley 
street, the top of the sewer is shown as low as the bottom 
of the river. 

At Allen’s Print Works, on Plate 3, the sewer will be 
seen passing under the bottom of the trench into which they 
now empty their waste. Where the West river crosses 

5 


34 CITY DOCUMENT. [ No. 27. 


Charles street, the sewer goes under the river, into which river 
the Silver Spring Bleachery discharges its waste. The same 
occurs on Branch avenue, near the Wanskuck mills. At 
Veazie street the line is intended to be low enough to allow 
of a line to cross under the river, and so on to the Steere 
mill and thence on to Geneva. 


Seventh. That he also furnish any other general information pertinent 
to the subject. 

In designing a system of sewerage for a city or town, an 
important question to be considered is the number of inhab- 
itants it is best to provide for. 

Some have expressed the opinion that the population 
determined upon for this city, that of 300,000 inhabitants, 
was too great a number, and I have therefore prepared an 
estimate of cost for 200,000 inhabitants, which number I 
feel confident will not be considered too large by any. It 
will be seen that the relative cost is not at all in proportion 
to the number of population provided for. 


ESTIMATE FOR SEWERS TO PROVIDE FOR 200,000 
PEOPLE, INSTEAD OF FOR 300,000. 


Total length of main intercepting sewers, 65,315 feet, not 
including the ninth ward. 
Changing the estimate from 300,000 to 200,000 
would change the size of about 34,150 feet 
of mains, reducing them by about two (2) 
inches in diameter, and would reduce the 
estimates by about ; Y b . $20,490 00 
Pumping station, machinery, and conduit to tanks, 1,280 00 
Precipitation tank, : ; : : s 10,000 00 
Outfall sewer, . ; : : : : Lice 


Total difference in cost of system between 
200,000 and 300,000 inhabitants, . ~ $338,495 00 


REPORT OF CITY ENGINEER. oo 


The question of disposing of manufacturing wastes being 
closely connected in our case with the questions of sewerage 
and sewage disposal, I have made estimates of the extra 
cost of constructing sewers, tanks, etc., to receive these 
wastes. 

This estimate, however, does not include the cost of 
treating the wastes. The cost of chemically treating manu- 
facturing wastes will depend much upon their nature. In 
some cases the wastes act on the town sewage as a pre- 
cipitant, while in others they do not, and it by no means 
follows that because it costs a certain amount to treat 
1,000,000 gallons of town sewage, it will cost as much more 
to treat an equal additional amount of manufacturing waste. 


The following is the estimated cost due to providing for 
taking manufacturing waste into the sewers : 


PRESENT ESTIMATE FOR 300,000 PEOPLE, MAN- 
UFACTURING WASTE. 


To take out the manufacturing waste from main 
intercepting sewers would change the size of 
about 49,890 feet of sewer by reducing the 
size by about 4 inches in diameter and re- 
ducing estimate by about . : $54,879 O00 
Ninth ward not changed. 
Pumping station, machinery and conduit to tanks, 1,980 00 
One tank, : ; : : : A 20,000 00 


Outfall sewer, . : ? : : 2,000 00 


$78,859 00 


The following description of precipitation is taken from 
Appendix A. of the City Engineer’s report presented to the 
city council in 1884: 


36 CITY DOCUMENT. [ No. 27. 


* Chemical Precipitation. 


“Chemical precipitation, as the name indicates, consists in 
adding to the sewage a solution of certain chemicals whose 
action is to promote the deposition of the solid, and of a por- 
tion of the dissolved matters in the sewage. The chemicals 
also act as deodorizers, and to a certain extent as disinfect- 
ants, thereby rendering the works nearly devoid of offensive 
odors; thus contrasting strongly with the method of simple 
subsidence by gravity. 

“The mixture of sewage and chemicals flows into precipita- 
tion tanks, where it comes to comparative or absolute rest, 
and from which the effluent flows after the chemical action 
has taken place, leaving such impurities as have been removed. 
These impurities, together with the liquids retained by them, 
form a black fluid which is denominated ‘sludge.’ About 
ninety per cent. of this sludge is water, the remaining ten 
per cent. being the impurities obtained from the volume of 
sewage treated. 

“The disposal of the sludge is a difficulty inherent to pre- 
cipitation works. In its original condition, containing a 
large amount of water, it is too fluid to bear transportation 
in the ordinary manner. It is pumped out of the precipita- 
tion tanks and allowed to flow, in some instances, upon the 
adjacent land, where it remains until it loses sufficient moisture 
by evaporation to allow it to be cut with aspade. To effect 
this evaporation by exposure to the air requires a great deal 
of time, during which the sludge gives off certain odors in 
warm weather which have caused complaint. 

“Various means have been tried to hasten the consolidation 
of the sludge by artificial means, as by drying upon heated 
floors after partial draining off of the liquids. The most 
successful method, however, is that recently perfected by 
Messrs. S. H. Johnson & Co., of Stratford, England. By 
this method the liquid portion of the sludge is extracted by 
pressure in a press of peculiar construction. The press is 
proyided with a set of ‘cloths’ of stout canvas, which are 
held together by plates in such a way as to form a series of 
compartments, into which the sludge is forced by the pressure 
of compressed air, the liquids escaping through the meshes 
of the cloth, and the solids being retained within the com- 
partments formed by the cloths. When all the compartments 


REPORT OF CITY ENGINEER. 37 


are filled with the solid substances, the press is opened, and 
within each compartment is found a solid cake of compressed 
sludge, nearly devoid of odor and of such compactness that 
it can be readily handled. The amount of water in the cake 
is about fifty per cent. of its weight. That is to say, one 
hundred pounds of solid matter, for example, when precipi- 
tated from the sewage, entangles within itself about nine 
hundred pounds of water, forming a liquid sludge. The 
action of the press is to extract about eight hundred pounds 
of the water, leaving the one hundred pounds of solids 
associated with about one hundred pounds of water in the 
cake of compressed sludge. The liquid extracted from the 
sludge runs back into the sewer, and passes through the 
precipitation tanks again. 

“This recent method of treating sludge has removed a great 
objection to chemical precipitation. The compressed sludge 
muy be used for manure, it possessing considerable fertiliz- 
ing value, depending upon the nature of the sewage and of 
the chemicals used, or it may be used for reclaiming land or 
for other purposes. 


“The general features of precipitation works may be 
briefly summarized: mechanical arrangements for separat- 
ing the grosser solids from the sewage ; others for dissolving 
the chemicals and incorporating them with the sewage ; tanks 
of sufficient area and capacity for the precipitation of the 
impurities, and with channels for the escape of the effluent ; 
pumping machinery for removing the sludge, and suitable 
arrangements and machinery for its disposal; buildings for 
the protection of the works, for the storage of materials, and 
for the residence of the employés. To these may be added 
certain facilities for the control of the sewage, both at ordi- 
nary times and also in case of severe storms, when its 
volume may exceed the capacity of the precipitation tanks. 
At such times the sewage being greatly diluted with surface 
water, the excess may be sent directly to the river through 


overflow weirs, as has been before observed. 


“While these general features are common to all precipi- 
tation works, the variations in detail, and in particular as 
to the kind and amount of the chemicals used, are very 
Sg ULSD hell aa ah 


38 CITY DOCUMENT. [ No. 27. 


“The Coventry Process. 


“The Rivers’ Purification Association, limited, which was 
formed in 1877, ‘does not confine its operations to any par- 
ticular system for treating sewage, but employs whatever is 
found to be most suitable and best adapted to the local cir- 
cumstances and requirements of each place.’ 

“ Although acting upon this basis, the process employed at 
works which the company is now operating is what is known 
as the Coventry process of chemical precipitation, the chem- 
icals used being crude sulphate of alumina, proto-sulphate of 
iron, and lime. The company at the time of our visit in 
England was operating the sewage purification works at 
Coventry, Hertford and Leyton, and their process has been 
recommended for the sewage works of the Lower Thames Val- 
ley Main Sewerage District; which if carried out will 
embrace the sewerage systems of fifteen or twenty towns in 
the immediate vicinity of London. 

“ At Coventry the effluent from the precipitation tanks is 
still further purified by filtration through land before it 
flows into the River Sherbourne. At Hertford the effluent 
is filtered through coke filters. At Leyton the efiluent flows 
directly into the stream, which is a branch of the River Lee, 
without any filtration whatever. 

“The appearance of these efiluents is excellent. They are 
nearly, if not quite, colorless and possess little or no odor. 
Their chemical analyses indicate a high degree of purity. 
The following table gives the results of several analyses of 
the effluents at Coventry and Hertford, made by Prof. 
Wanklyn :—* 


* Report of Rivers’ Purification Association. 


REPORT OF CITY ENGINEER. 39 


Grains per [imperial] gallon,} [Milligrammes, per kilo, or] 


[or parts per 70,000. ] parts per million. 

PLACE. DATE. 

Solids. Chlorine. | Freeammonia. —pedenp re: 

1878, 
SOVOULrVee UNG: Tbe!) ops 4.8 MIE arya 1,60 
CULy Gael frat ee) 6 )5 4.2 18.00 1.00 
Hepeetal sks ! 4.6 14.00 2.00 

1880. 
Pertintd widat: 5% ha. 3), 1.5 120 | 0.14 
Way 265 ak 3) 1.4 1.20 0.10 


‘¢The works at Leyton have been established quite re- 


cently, and no analyses of the effluent have as yet been 
published. 


“The sludge obtained by the Coventry process has consid- 
erable manurial value. Dr. Voelcker* estimated its theo- 
retical value at 16s. 94d. per ton, and its practical or market 
value as compared with farm-yard manure at 5s. 6d. to 8s. 4d. 
per ton. ‘These values refer to sludge containing from fifty 
to sixty per cent. moisture. Were the moisture still further 
reduced by drying, the computed value would be somewhat 
greater. Dr. Wallace estimated its value when air dried, 
and containing about ten per cent. of moisture, at £1 7s. 2d. 
The price obtained for it, however, is very much less than 
these values, which have never been realized. At Coventry 
and Leyton the sludge, pressed into cakes containing about 
fifty per cent. of moisture, is sold at from 2s. to 2s. 6d. per 
ton. The demand for it, however, is not large.” 


While precipitation in its earlier stages was attended with 
serious difficulties, it must be admitted that great improve- 


*Local Government Board Report, 1876. 
{Glasgow Sewage Report, 1879. 


40 CITY DOCUMENT. [ No. 27. 


ments have been made during the last few years in this method 
of sewage disposal, particularly as to the manner of treat- 
ing the sludge. 

It is feared by some that the eftuent from precipitation 
will be injurious to the life of fish, and with the lime pro- 
cess it undoubtedly would, but there is ample evidence to 
show that such fears are groundless when the Coventry or 
sulphate of alumina process is employed. 

If it be true that by precipitation we waste valuable fer- 
tilizing qualities, what must be said of the loss by filtration 
where even the solids or sludge are often sacrificed to purifi- 
cation, or of the value of this saving by irrigation when we 
find the extra cost of thus disposing of the sewage far out- 
weighs the returns therefrom ? 

It may be said that precipitation does not fully purify the 
sewage ; but if it sufficiently classifies it so that it causes no 
nuisance, is not this sufficient ? 

Our effluent will flow into a tidal river, and we therefore 
need not purify the sewage as thoroughly as would be 
necessary were it emptied into a stream liable to be used for 
domestic purposes. 

Sheffield, England, has just completed works for disposing 
of its sewage by precipitation. Frankfort-on-the-Main is 
also about completing similar works. 

As is stated in the report of the Royal Commission, one 
advantage in precipitation, aside from the fact that it can be 
brought into action more speedily than any other plan, is 
that the cost of the precipitation part of the plant is com- 
paratively small, and, as was stated in the report of the 
City Engineer to the Council in 1884, 


“ By combining precipitation with irrigation a much smaller 
area of land is requisite, and should it hereafter be deemed 
advisable to adopt some system of irrigation, the proposed 
precipitation works will form a most useful auxiliary.” 


REPORT OF CITY ENGINEER. 4] 


Realizing the truth of Dr. Tidy’s evidence “ that sewage 
is a great ugly thing that one has to spend money on to 
prevent its being a trouble and cause a nuisance,” and of 
~ Mr. Baldwin Latham’s statement that “it must be looked 
upon as a dead loss in whatever way you have to deal with it,” 
and that “the question is how to get rid of it most cheaply,” 
and recognizing the fact that no sewerage system is com- 
plete which does not dispose of the sewage without causing 
a nuisance, still the vital question is, 7Zow can we get rid of 
our sewage at the least expense and not cause a nuisance 
thereby ? 

To this I answer, by precipitation. It is the most practi- 
cable method for this city; more economical than either 
irrigation or filtration, and capable of being so carried out as 
to remove all fear of nuisance being caused by the works 
or the eflluent therefrom. 


SAMUEL M. GRAY, 
City Hngineer. 


ANPTN ‘apeog pron. a4 


mal 
: ‘yar | 
Pe : 
os YP ([AMULOL - <2 en 
— Wis . 
ay 2 ee 
| 
| 
y pace) 
; serra be, 
Oy 
oD i 
BS 209°... s§ 
; ake) | . 
: t4 Hu i 
: : 
- 
iv) 
3 “% 
fee 
‘i y 
= 
+) 
Ee ® 
: i" 
2 
| + 
IS 


cker Av. 


Plate l. 


137190 


LN/0d S.0TI14 


(1)! EE SIP SE Yj. A EY ae, “at 7 i a a SAAT ‘appos 1 
i 00/ 0G og Ei We ap ar - : deaaay ILE ke 
ay I~, [[PALLOLD = 
N E x 
3 > 
fro 
| 
3 | 
£ 
ie) 
o | 
oD | 
a 
5 Ww noaea : 38 
: tH | 
Fy a iz 
§ oo 
« ~ ae 
wo 
3 E 
a 8 
x o | 
uu 
ro) And \ 
3 4 | | 
3 
Bon = 
2/7 Toy | 
a8 
SIIAVOd * 
6 
ay~ < 
SLAZO, he 
o 
ie 
Oo 
mm Me 
¥s io 12 
yn Oo WEL OL te ai 
tS ITS wop Furia gy 
“AK i : 
Sse1g1I09 se ! ae | Vv) 
7 | 
d rs pug Inedeysey | a) 
s 2 
Our wop¥urxaT ‘i x | = 
es 1 | 
g 4 a0 | xt 
Ly z| ! she 
ier tS = 
a 
a | 
“A i“ apreyepy kK 
IS 2ymleg YY) | 
vos SE 
w 
3 e is 
E fe) 2 
b ur ~ 
IG WHelTeD ad 
Be OG z 
5 
> o S 
‘IC PPI LS lo sy 
< a 
8 ac = | 
: ee 
UW assnx 3 | < 
S | 
y IW? mep4aeg = She eels 2 5 
pe A, o-rTe 
1 a t 
' wi] = l= 
| a tr 
| | =| a5 
' 
3| | © 
ae | 
— fom sr er 
i < br} Li 
| \ = oye 
1 ‘ 
| z ie | 
ee : a 
\ }) ale 
| 
Gla cera Pe ae aoe 
) 5 \ 
nh x ? | 
a Y | 
< Q ¢ i 
a “a 
faa) 2 * = 
1 x ie 
: 26x Wosprie H [~ a 
xe | yo 
RS < 
s) — ae ee 
yt ] 
Sup | : = 
a ofa : 
4 / 24 Io oO 
aor | ae 
UOSPLCEYIY O | Oo 
rn} \ 
ws A7TOH | ; 
VAP aItleid ,\ a “ Fi lL. 
= a Pe ke | 
z nS 
= ee — 
v +s r LJ 
2 gS Bu) | s | + 
3 oe l 39 peosmg — 
x <a S | — 
<i Pane E 
wy US afoo \ %e , | —! 
c AP UOLLAPT \ = 
© io) 
© as Plows a \ Ls Fa 
6 ere v a 
Oe ae Bega VAN, ——___|&. __ 2842220 ~ _~-_---=— 
5 “OE lel Puree |\ a 
< 
2S APPT 
=p 
ge od 
ang 
oh he 
2 
< ¥ 
fx) 1) ies d 
ag ae | 8 
ee ee 2 
es) at 
eg LJ MO14SY3IAO HILVM wo ====SS== 
= lL ) NOILWLS ONIdGWOd 
oO —. 
eee ie 
ea = wie 
© Ke) 
ao 
Pee 
uu (eG 
folie lee = 
GI pet = 
Reaper: (legis tera tr. =e 
\ > A 
At Oo pies 4 SS 
al oi Fame Jal = 
7 ad Li) 2 
ec — ~ 
SUNV| NO|LWiId1I93Ng 
al ies 


an 


Pirate 


x Oak SE., 


Sts 


. Valley 


\leppo. 


8S 
9 
< 
ow 
‘29 ala 
3S YFlH 
ABM peolg 
m 
> 
RN 
: 
incon vie. een ee 


‘$1030 JI 
aba y oless Tone, 


Os a ee 5 SIRO ajeag jong | 
ol i al. Of: 04 SOG aoe o9 os A oe o@ poe aan 
wis 
0 g 
ne ee | 
: | f 
py oy | 4 
oF | 
a 
a 
: | 
"IS aylg } 
3 | 
y | 
9S YS | 48 
 Aempeorg \ : 
Ss \ 
2 \ ° 
\ ae ee 
° == a ae een a 
A. | | , 
o i 
YS 111 paesEe FE } 
<x | | 
H 
v Z 
~ 5 i 
S prex lin | | 
C Ea | 
a z % | 
a i f. Ny 
Fa ad | 
E | 
z 3s eurejed \ | 
5 \ 
£& 
A | | 
s \ | £4 ie | 
xX | LIHDINLYNOSYNOOM tl 
> \ is 
o \ 410 Jey 
y 2 ; x | 
> 
rE \ 
Oy 
P AP S/[9a3 py 
J | 
n | AS’ YLEMI LN 
BRAS 1297S \ = 
= 18 CY LIAUL/LT ‘ 
BS os eurefeqd \ | Bint LAE O 
Ca \ Zz 
P, | < 
> 
o ‘IE LAATY I” PLOLC LT | ow 
ic) | 
x ‘ IS, a(FBz (ofa e | 
‘ is 5 J LPod le 
\ | R n , 
ay 
1p- once | | 
. : \ | = 
Le) \ | 
: rz 
Cy | 
a 
2 IS jfewso, 42 | 
% | {oaee? 7 less 
| 
| ) | 
| / us| 
| / 3] - | 
Ap syamiyy J = fi Ase ol 
ie ie | | < 
ay x / 2s | | 
| iy Z| 
ke ~ Oo 
4 a : | 
is ajed \ Z| 
| I ee ze | 
I | 
D uJ 
- \ 
a | eee 
© | J = | 
aH 4 | 
| yy | 
| | | 
| O , 
If ULOIOp ) | 2 | 
fF E if 
| v vat 7S | WwW 
2 | a 
| | fon | 
ie x 
\ | 
1p uozrkerg | he ee 
45 ? Wed LJ 
| 
| hese | 
| \ | \ | 
| \ | z ee 
| 
SIAISY 
OP ey apae rFNOOM __ |e ee 
ly. 
od | if Pan 
1 f | 
ND 7 aFuePyIxXA M | | i a | | 
| fit } | 
2 | KF ¢£ | 
° eee | 
| 
| Lo Hn pl ftesen samen yaya = 
is | ; 
n ae - 
IG, UIges } 
= 99 ulejuno7z i 5 
b 0) 
y jp uo ,Fulysey | =| ra 
= | |) x TR a ; 
wo \ int | — ‘IP <ersurijsay s 
z \ \\ | \ es 
YP sagsuiugsay ) = } fol \ a 
: I! H | z 
ap yadey) / We | | = 
= | IP Bury <I 
Is peoig | = PCL “igh: 
= ANN >) fs . ) = 
J \ | Bs ‘op Ley | 31.0 
NN | | 5 
os Cad FUL \ rat | ) 4 * 
= ws auld | (av ; iS YPed a} 
yo diyspuatty & Dw prog, 3 
: POG IE LIS PLOwgua 3 
nee BES PAA D ) B If e2uPIIOg } ow 
& | | W 
41d | bs) > 
A ~ | Yen 
= A \\ > ; | " 
a \ Le ee ee ee Ne 
/ > 
aUBT SUueul [fe LT is O = 
Ip wyrz ( —— in 
\ 
v 2S, YFROS | | e 
x 
> \ 
| i) IS JUIOg 
ies) 
| 
/ 
IS 4aysoyour py : 
3} Wd 
a = 
x 9g AeyseueT | Si Wa 
gg Are19 A = 
: =} 
3 A 8 
=x zr 
4 2 
=} 
US “osiepua fH 5 PS 
} 
\ 
= es 7p) 
4S PUOJSHIC[T —— oc 
~ ie) I) 
. < 3 ae 
S ES Li 
eal ce 
as 21/qng 
= we 
US [J2Uuu07,0 = re) = 0 
‘ ap Seg 6 cr = ise 
td © « c 
< IS euangiags TY un = 9 . a 
wena ye 
29 UeMS oO w 
g) hg SS J Ll TEES en 
AY PAG sejher = (a 0 < x 
= s nynjy L 1 6 
a as penanyy Ihe ea 6 ie = & 
IS PLYXO > LJ =) 
a [-- oO 
, Os 
ae sno uhas pom 
D> . _— 73 
“Ap savoqany Zz, <L 
fame a 


FJAOD FSITHOD 


“LSIOH HiT 
NOILVLS ONIdWng 


Plate 3. 


eae BTBIS [RIDA A 


~) 


+390. 


Av seyFnog 


O11 828 


IO 


“9 


AS PLIM 


‘AS OLZBOA 


28 


ees 6 


—— saa Ww : 
oes ar are aleog eon4aA 
% 
sg AP seffnog = ee es Se 
> va 
3 2 
8 
12) 
2S PLIM 4 
aaa 
“yp erzBeA, 
\ > 
\ xy 
> ; 
i z 
5 
2 
ees 
o 
\ 2 
= \ 
Qo z 
g see 7 
2 a N 
u | | 
iss) x re 
nt 
sxcogreg ¢ dado s \ + , 
2a] MIE) Lea yy 9 ap 4epemapuey, \ fon ex 
YIAIY 157M bebo | 
Pa 
1% | \s 
| ) 
errata? | 
x aja wulay A - ; 
| x 1 + 
7 | *) 
oa tig 
ae) 7 0) 
3 8 weg =| 
ov 8 u 
zg & a \Pes 
22 ” 
o 9 | 
i z) 
C) 2 3] x 
As ica) JTC SUTAMP | 
zu ao 
S + ue] ono¢g } ls 
7 etd iN 0 vsoerwo77 | N 
7) 
° h | 
6” fy be ie 
i | 
°3 | a | ul 
2 9 | Vi | > | 
=i) | | 
og be x x i@— | 
ere | \ | 
D 
Aw SN hae | 
S \ } } 
<j \ | | 
fal 4 | 
5 i a 
ee ieee youP. = 
F 2 tp) 
77) = > | | 
= z YIAIH LSIM poy j Ll 
z 3 ¥ < 
| J | 
i= | | 
= | } 
a uJ D | | 
iS 
i! rs - | | 
G x 5 {3 | 
0 a } | 
Fes = g | 
= ~ | | | 
tt} / | | 
%¥ AINDIYXL / | 
/ \f 
( | | 
225 MePl2UM Y | 
n \ 
- S \ lo 
i”) nZ \ 1 
$ \ | | 
& 4 \ | 
Ps L{ ‘ we \ | 
~ | 
Soe | 
YIAls ¢ | 
go e E | > 
rs 5 | | 
Si i Wf 4e7SGaM | 
yl gb w yi | 
na — que puourary { | 
‘y : \ 
HINTHL ul is | 
eG si i | 
\ Se \ Io 
AS [[epuex a ©? be yrepuexy--l Is 
5 & RS 
h co zal ~ 
a 
0 6/ | 
ce ( 
5 SS z > a 
ie i ~ sl EA | 
YIM MINSSKASSOW Th = \ | 
= wren. z |r 
] | Wi 
lito a 
YS" [TLE a Ql 
at a TW 
) ls | 
ae seapddlo aue7z_) c Pe : 
5 igen oo 4 Bl Ceapenem nade ve, EEN Gees | 
A ~ { 
\" 
\ © } | 
N fore } | 
| 
} 
=) 
n / 
{ 
IT og J4niziog7g N Ss 
> Ap Gutasr \ 
-- | 
2 ) < | = 
# Us <Fupeapy © U | | Y 
oO =) YLegT evysHo.erg_ 
iS) y | 
WS YIIAS | 
be | 
| 
GS Soule | Y v | 
( < 3 s 
\ Re as ee 
“IF aFajog = ka ra 
ad i 
Y) iS | 
na ‘29 eray < | 
x 
IS PIOLM EL) 6) | 
| |= 
“IS PEM = | S 
\ | 
LS 2UueTW | 
| | 
IG tamog | 
) | 
| : = 
y 2 \ 
;| O 
3 | & 
ee A = 
A US seule | 7 | | < 
on 3 ae | 
9 | Of uLeutlazPey | ag 
2 "IE QISUBLL \ = 
Qf GPU si 3| 
A 2 
QI 
ic | Fie 
S * fli a= 
5 IS 2uaA3D 5 i] i 
2 | = 
w WS FULLY T | ay 
Z| 
| 5 
he 
| o | 1 
‘IS OYLT | 4c r 
| ae rl uJ 
rs 
<j) hod 
IST LO7VOMYIOT ds > ~ 
| ipa 3 
| s =})| = 
19 eBipuys | S z 
2 fe) Py 
= [a 
vo | 
o 
yn 
ey 
: SE 
OP Ste TIM 
IS? JUOMP LT Zz 
2 ie) 
. Ep pISUeay 
~ 
e n RYN 
DP uwoz,uaLy | 
—— a 5 \ ly 
A Bs wepueyory | i 
5 | | LJ 
YQ © | 
ne 1} 
oc | oP) 
> IS LOROMYIOTL iY | HS 
x “BIpUuy pur owe» 
os ira 
LL IS SaAs 
= ome 38 
ceca x 
Si be eae . 
uw oO ~ 
py eee a 
oO Oa ce 
eal o we 
a ial et a 8 
amy ie wo > 2 s 
2) er zs 
a 
io i -s is 5 if 
cb . 
rs) If yoorg 
Ofea 
hi WS OSTOAPLL 
ae WS pIeuag 
ae Za . 
= — aS ureyy $ 
i, 9S 42eM 3 
oo eee 


| 


WY 
WS 


WS 


i 


WM. ;};}0s 


\ ING CHAMBER. 


AWS 


T 
\ 


Ss 
7 


bet 


om 


a EE 
ay as YI Lye G _ 
ba, 


MR nhs 


INTERCEPTING SEWER 


ING METHOD OF CONNECTING THE 
H THE INTERCEPTING SEWER 


Plate 4. 


Plate 4 


IMPROVED SEWERAGE 


PUeaine (As ves 


WEAUNOINTERCEPTING SEWERS &c. 
City Engineer's Office 


PROVIDENCE R.I. 


S 8 
May 1886. S < 
7 x S 
& & . 
N ~ 
S X 
ea J 
SN SS iS 
iS Ss enue | |S 
a & | 
= S SL oa ld 4 
S : | | 
iN 1 |] 
R || TIDE 
: By 
ee ee | | ee 
recs ae — is | 3+ 
i] = 
Ils at) 
Ro F 
Pry A 
114 
a Gy my INTERCEPTING SEWER 
De ek: = a eee si ee MEAN HIGH WATER LINE . re : a = ens. S — = 2 in 
4 
Le ene t______ het = = = 4 - t ~ ; <1 = el t) 
a puccne sed a es oy ae #2 y ae 2 am PLANS AND SECTIONS SHOWING METHOD OF CONNECTING THE 
33 : 
LINE FROM OLNEYVILLE To MANTON bs COMMON SEWERS WITH THE INTERCEPTING SEWER. 


‘s1878A oye OQ TROT} 1aA, 


‘qoay 


Ay. 


Allens 


7860 Ft. From 
PUMPING STATION, 


8000. 


IMPROVED SEWERAGE 


Pa ReOm rns Sees OFr 


MAIN INTERCEPTING SEWERS 


City Engineer's Office 


PROVIDENCE R.I. 
April 1886. 


Providence River 


Filo lesen 


0//83/ | 


os 


4S 
<a 

XN ; 

v S 
* oh 
NY ™| 
& J) 
$ 41] 

S +|4 
= 

2 a} 


Pere fal ios 


Sra oO VW o|-N G 


THIS LINE 40 FT. BELOW M.H.wW. 


\ \ : ; ’ ‘ : 7 . 7 : - 7 
a 
LE 


3s 
| 
pee. 


1 


L 


t 
= 1 = 
ae CJT eS a © a 


8500 


Series 


PFR'OnPlO7s 1D 


n 
9000 


GC ROS SEN G THE 


— 
9500 


Mitteas HeolD OF Reta 


Plate 6. 


ONEZH 


-_— 


Water 


uth 


PL LMOPJOMYIOL 


AV” PUL 


IL FULITZLIP 7 
4j2 fia 


FS PISUPAL 


TS SIuler 


}SHSQON ojeag peo1yzay, 


/4 


se nwnwaneemaehaeewnwee eee ee es 
/3 


Te 


Fietos PoiInT. 


ee ——t 


RESERVOIR. 


MEAN HIGH WATER LINE. 


2 4 
fo) 1@) 
FE ie 
< fe " Allens Av. x Eddy St. x 
a i y ) 5 3 — 
o 1 SS ~ : 
s iv) % =! 8 ‘ ae c XQ 
z z Ny iS ss ¥ S S ages ‘ “ D 
= 8 6 : WS Ll g oC s) x 1) y ~ Ni : 
= a 8 RI 5 y ‘! ~ 3 . S a 5 , 2 8 & 
2 Ss ~ 5 Vv t NX = ae po ~ Fi Le) 
5 = hy he ik Ww y yy Se a ~ AO a) v S$ N Lt 
= 2 ee hy, mee os ORS a 3 p A S S Ree oe 
a >) / > sr 0 N ies x S S S vn % ty *~ > & we 
J Sh § BY Wes S SS VON g S es a 
= si G28 % Q n 0 a = R ’ =) 
~ ty) re Be - ist} a 
Rie. Seon 8 oe ae 
fae 
s ©) aaa 


Dyer St 
XK 
= w 
=) 
v w 
0 y > 
~ N 4 
s ¢ 
iy 9) 
y n 
8 Oo A 
Q 


: 
esesce see eeeeeewese ese eee eee ee ewe ee eee 


Meaeoeee eres == 


eal A 


1 og re 
1K 


PROFILE SHOWING SEWER AND STORAGE 
FOR CRUDE DISPOSAL. 


RESERVOIR 


THIS LINE 30 FT BELOW M.H.W 
— 


___MEAN HIGH WATER LINE —S =} I 


nae 
aes 


South 
~ 
ae) ~ 

2s 
% 2 
v ' 
Sie 
es Y 
WY xX 
a S 
as ist 


Water 


JST, 


SAaImMes 


Transit St 


& 
yy 
> z 
Re 
tu 
vs 
> 
Woy 
~ Q ‘ Q 
x ae) 8 a 
a AS, 
: Veiga aS 
4 “ ~ BA 
~ Re eS 
%) ~ er 
ne PY NIRS 
Pears \—~ 


see ene em eneeseee eee ee Ss 


Site 


ST 


Cert 


F'al hing St 


a: 


re 
7) o /000 tt. o 4 Ej 6 ' 7 


1 
/ KILOMETER 2K 


Sop 
Sof 
4) 


PROFILE SHOWING GuRGAo Ee NEG ESS 78 [2% BOI TAKING Wig 
Sn DIE ACROSS U tal = ROU EIR Aaa CRAWFORD 


SEWAGE 
Sila 


Oy 


Win 


St 


Pilce 


St 


Tochiwoattor 


0 


7,0 
Za 


60 


50 


Sv 


SIZATS? 6 
40 


oO 
Vd 


uU 


Vertical § 


| 


UIP] J YAIMAP LY PUA Wado Nr 


“ahs 
KY 
8) 
o 
co) 
aw 
py 
& 
= 


Plate 7 
= E se —__— ~ = - ones2 | 


SHOWING LINE OF FORCE MAIN FROM ne 
Sy 
PUMPING STATION neakR FIELDS POINT tro TERRITORY in WARWICK § 
xs 
as 
Rita) iS) IN eer@IN NIE Cape aNi Wel tr N 
5 
SEWAGE IRRIGATION ~ 
re 2 y § 
° OTe! 5 z City Eng s Of 8 S 
FE Field Farm x Division Av. x Eddy hes 6 = Broad Site > % ify Ensgineer’s Office ‘ 2 5 § 
4 £ PROVIDENCE R.I. & « t 5 
z S “ aN Ng Q a Private Property. 
” 2 5 April 1886 8 95 & s x | 
° att SS % = | ~ 
v Sx = ; e 8 
z ae S ce & ru S x N ee meat ese 
: < Warwick Av Rie 3 iy Warwick \\ Q S < a & ON 
i Ay. § : 2 3 <- o 
ee S§ = tq x RS S wn 
= ‘ S : 8 g tee 
ae See = = * a -_ ———— a 
& : & La a a = \ 
fs 
i fag Ee R an ——= = = \ 
eee ee i = 
s oe SN - ad 
R y WE Ss NI ee 
= / SS A 
‘A MEAN HIGH WATER LINE. 7 1 79 i) 23 a ae 2: 26 27 +300 
7 <= Sars gy # " 
Vertical Scale PeSt;., yest Ot ag Oe ; ae ; = en : Ee ae ee eS eee =e eee 


Plate & 


OIE 33 


‘29 MOOLT 


"99° LaatIFIeGAT 


‘AP allleid 


| 


Plate & 


{ 
| 


OME 33 


| 

| 

| 

| 
| 


Qe FOOLS 


"25" Ueda F#Ia@Agq 


Road 


ea 
| | 


| 

PEO [flff— azesoAa { 
ro 
ic 
) 


‘ 
\ 
‘ 


‘ 
‘ 
‘ 
i} 
i} 
' 
' 
i} 
\ 
' 
i} 


aspIlg May 


ri 


RO 


2000.Tt. 


+850 


26 


RS. 


a4 


rape 


T ‘sa1070j/T 
200 


Sie IG TROTLAVA - 


} 


